It’s more so if blacks stay, then they have to accept unfair compromises from white newcomers. A lot of the black owned businesses have closed, and have been replaced by white businesses. And the white newcomers get to dominate the Shaw neighborhood and not the blacks. And the neighborhood went from 70 percent black in 1970 to 30 percent black in 2010. Go figure.
We have a word for that, and it ain’t “gentrification”. :dubious:
What are “black businesses” and “white businesses”? Aren’t they just businesses?
The former is owned by blacks, and the latter is owned by whites.
They’re just businesses. What difference could it possibly make who owns them?
I think your definition of gentrification is kind of skewed. You’re conflating race and socioeconomic status and attributing a whole lot of racial baggage to something that’s almost exclusively an economic phenomenon.
Look at it this way- if a bunch of black entrepreneurs or say… a city government came in and made a desperately poor neighborhood very attractive to middle class black people (but not to white people for whatever reason), that would do ALL the things that gentrification does- raise rents, drive out a lot of businesses that cater to the previous poor crowd, the ones who remain raise prices.
As you can imagine, this would make life hard on the poor people who lived there before for all the same reasons. The only difference would be in the magnitude and in the race of the gentrifiers. And I don’t even know if the magnitude would really matter much, if the original residents were poor enough; a 10% increase in prices would be equally unsupportable as a 50% increase in that case.
It doesn’t even have to be anything planned; let’s say (this is a hypothetical) that a really poor area gets really lucky and the planets align and the local schools end up with super-awesome principals, teachers and administrators, and the educational attainment of the area’s schools reaches par with the best suburban white schools.
THAT alone will drive up rents, due to the people wanting to move their to have their children better educated, and being willing to pay. And with that extra money, comes the higher rent, the higher prices, and all the ills of gentrification.
So? Are you automatically equating “blacks” with “poor” and “whites” with “rich”? I would hope not.
The OP seems unaware of the existence of middle class blacks or poor whites
Sure they do, it does depend on how NIMBY the zoning laws are.
Seattle has a huge problem with displacement in general, but historically African American neighborhoods are severely impacted.
Mostly because that group of citizens tends to have less pull with the zoning board and city council. So their SFH neighborhoods get rezoned to multi-use or designated as urban villages when predominately white middle class neighborhoods (which were often sold with deeds that forbid non-white ownership) are protected as SFH areas.
Gentrification is driven by profit motives and not building communities.
You sir have made a real argument.
I have a feeling you’d say the same thing to someone who just posted…
How the flying bologna sandwiches is the part in the parenthesis legal or enforceable? So long as it isn’t, it shouldn’t be relevant.
The part in parenthesis is not legal or enforceable now, but it was once common, even in the northern parts of the country not usually associated with Jim Crow.
The patterns created by these rules are part of the reason cities are still segregated.
Although the issue here seems to be biased urban bureaucrats enforcing regulations unevenly, rather than greedy developers.